I don't recall ever commenting one way or another on the C-17. Obviously we need large freight aircraft. If we paid above the going market rate, maybe we paid too much. I don't have any idea how much we paid, nor do I recall ever thinking about it. I think you've got me confused with someone else.
Nice trick though ... insist I prove a negative. Instead I'll challenge you to find posts I've made against the recent purchases C-17's ... helicopters, or the tanks. I doubt you'll find any ... which makes it really bizarre that you'd state that I'm against any defense purchases.
....
You lied about me being against any defence purchase. Still waiting for the apology ...
Fair enough. If I have you mixed up with someone else, I'll apologize now.
That said, if I recall correctly, you're in your mid-30s. So you must have been quite the political animal in kindergarten to support the Hornet buy.
That is so absolutely prejudiced of you, it's shocking. Why the prejudice? What a black and white world you must live in. The conservatives support many things I support. They support taxation, as do I. They support gay marriage, as do I. They support the monarachy, as do I. The Liberals (in Ontario at least) oppose ending funding for education based on religion ... and I disagree with them.
I (and I am sure most others) have a completely different take on your opinions of conservatives, given your posts. But whatever....
I don't see how it's similar. There were contracts in place ... the F-35 contracts aren't in place - at least this is what the Conservatives tell us - though given how much they lie ... who knows.
I'm predjudiced but all Conservatives lie? Really? So apparently, you are now going to suggest that it's possible for the government to sign a $9 billion acquisition contract and a 20-year $15 billion maintenance contract without anybody noticing?
Another reason it's not the same, is that with the F-35 production delays, we're years away from being able to receive any planes. There's plenty of time to tender it properly, and receive planes in the same timeframe - perhaps even sooner (and cheaper) if we select Super Hornets
Sigh. You don't bother actually reading any of my posts do you? The RCAF does not care about schedule at the moment. The CF-18 just completed $5 billion worth of upgrades and the fleet is good for another decade. However, because it's critical that there's no gaps in capability, DND has to plan now.
Cheaper is also debatable. As I've said above. Sure the Super Hornet is cheaper. But how cheap will it be to support the platform if there are only 3-4 users worldwide. Right now there are only two users: the US Navy and the Aussies. And both the USN and the RAAF have committed to large numbers of F-35s and use the Super Hornet in the light attack role. Indeed, the USN is insisting that the Super Hornet will need an F-35 escort for strike missions beyond 2025 because it might not be able to defend itself in any moderate threat environment. It's being written into their doctrine and concept of operations. Neither organization uses or plans to use the Super Hornet as their primary air defence asset. It's air-to-air capability is largely centred around self-defence going forward. Ditto for the Aussies. They have so much confidence in the Super Hornet that they refuse to retire their legacy Hornets. They bought the Super Hornet to replace the F-111s and the RAAF is still insistent on buying six dozen F-35s.
Two primary users of the Super Hornet. Both insist that the aircraft would make a good sidekick (bomb truck) for the F-35.
Of course you look at technological requirements. And surely a key issue is that the F-16 only has a single-engine, compared to the twin-engine F18s. Wasn't that a key requirement in that purchase, after the F-104 Widowmakers? That's my recollection at least ... it's been a while.
...
Obviously one of the things you spec is a twin-engined craft, because in the past we've killed too many people with single-engined fighters. Perhaps if we were a nation that didn't have great expanses of land with nowhere to land, it would be different ...
There was no twin engine requirement the last time around. That's why the F-16 was allowed to compete. The F-18 won because of its radar, not because of the second engine. Indeed, if you look at US numbers, the F-16 has a better safety record per flight hour than the F-18. And if you look at our (or the American's) flight safety database, there's very few incidents where two engines would have made a difference. It didn't make a difference in Lethbridge. It didn't make a difference in San Diego. etc.
Moreover, you should send that memo to the Americans, the Danes and the Norwegians who all operate single-engine F-16s inside the Arctic Circle. You should let the Swedes know that designing a single-engine Gripen was a terrible mistake. And don't forget the US Navy and Royal Navy as well, who are willing to forego a second engine for arguably the most demanding operating environment possible: the deck of an aircraft carrier. If you think the Arctic expanse is big, just wait till you see how big the oceans of the world are. I assure you, flying over water is far scarier than flying over the Arctic for any pilot and that's aside from the concern that a power failure when departing from the deck of carrier has some very serious consequences (like being run over by the ship).
The way forward is simple.
You spec what you need, and then you put it out to tender.
Yes, how about that. The RCAF drafted it's SOR. It consulted with industry, finalized it, and submitted to DND. DND concurred with the RCAF's assessment that there was only one aircraft that met the requirements as drafted based on the defence tasks assigned to the CF.
Professional providing sound professional advice to the Government of Canada. Imagine that.
Yet, somehow, this has all become a big political show a la the EH-101 again. And let's face it, it has nothing to do with sound defence policy, acquisition policy or anything else. It has had entirely to do with concerns over cost. And the only reason, we're even discussing the Super Hornet is because of cost. If the concern was capability or schedule, how come the Opposition has never proposed the Eurofighter?
If you boil down the Opposition's arguments, it's essentially an argument for an automatic win for the Boeing Super Hornet. We won't buy something smaller (Gripen). We won't buy something more expensive (Typhoon). We won't buy something with less industrial benefits (Rafale). That leaves one choice. "Hello, Chicago? How about them Super Hornets?" I wonder how much caviar and lobster Boeing has paid for in Ottawa over the last few quarters. Too bad for Boeing, their arguments didn't fly in Japan or Singapore and the Indians though it better to go with the Rafale for even the strike role....but then they also have Su-30s in their stables for air defence. Ditto for the Malaysians. We're one of the few suckers left in the world that Boeing can target.
I'd give the Opposition some credit if they weren't so insistent on sticking us with a lemon. They have gone from questioning the merits of the F-35 and the JSF program (fair) to pretty much openly advocating for Boeing and the Super Hornet (unfair) with wilful blindness to the latter's faults and virtual failure in virtually every other fighter competition overseas (yet somehow the RCAF is wrong to be worried about supportability?).
At the end of the day, we'll fly whatever the government buys us. And we'll put our lives on the line, if necessary, to get the job done. God knows the government has bought us lemons before (just look at the Griffons). But, what is frustrating to me as a professional is backbench MPs and random political hacks insisting that my colleagues didn't do their jobs, were dishonest, or were incompetent and that they absolutely know the best way forward. I will speak out when I come across such ignorance.
